cairnswk wrote:OK, i thought that might be what would happen...where do you think that territory should be?Next to a supply ship or land base, or out in the middle of the mire?

I'll have to think on it, but it may not be a bad idea to code the supply ships as starting positions, since they're pretty well spread out.

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?

I'll add any to that, but will that be too many overrides to code?

Not at all

Victor Sullivan wrote:Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.

Ah!...you need 25 armies on that corresponding row to get those 5 bonus points at the top row.The bottom row you need 5 to earn +1I guess that needs to go into the wording somehow. [/quote]Are you saying you need the designated number of troops on the specified square to get the bonus? Because I'm afraid that's not possible... You/I could adjust the neutral count on each to simulate that effect.

cairnswk wrote:OK, i thought that might be what would happen...where do you think that territory should be?Next to a supply ship or land base, or out in the middle of the mire?

I'll have to think on it, but it may not be a bad idea to code the supply ships as starting positions, since they're pretty well spread out.

OK. I'll put some of those starters in the next map i upload so that you and others can see what it looks like.

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?

I'll add any to that, but will that be too many overrides to code?

Not at all

Good.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.

Ah!...you need 25 armies on that corresponding row to get those 5 bonus points at the top row.The bottom row you need 5 to earn +1I guess that needs to go into the wording somehow.

Are you saying you need the designated number of troops on the specified square to get the bonus? Because I'm afraid that's not possible... You/I could adjust the neutral count on each to simulate that effect.-Sully

OH, i would have thought the required tag would have done the job there, but after checking...no.So yes to simulate that perhaps starting neutrals is required.Thanks Sully.

Treasury Table....new thinking that treasury table should be autodeploy, so that the treasury earns its own interest for money.In Elizabethan times, interest was limited to 10%, but to advance the treasury amount upwards incrementally to a higher amount you actually need something like 33% each time.So thus, the armies to hold have been worked on this 10% (with/without rounding)

I've changed the Treasury table to a "higher adds to lower bonuses" setting as I beleive this will give incentive to advance upwards rather than overrides.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, but if you use auto-deploys instead of deployable bonuses, where can they be fortified to?

-Sully

They can be used to attack upwards...."Players can move one-way up only to earn bonuses"or outwards...."they can assault to any side's Supply ships & Land Bases"and since they can assault they must border so therefore they can be used to fort outwardly and upwards. Yes. But the fort happens at the end of the turn, not the beginning.This brings in the concept that the navy must have a treasury in order to assist build it up.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, but if you use auto-deploys instead of deployable bonuses, where can they be fortified to?

-Sully

They can be used to attack upwards...."Players can move one-way up only to earn bonuses"or outwards...."they can assault to any side's Supply ships & Land Bases"and since they can assault they must border so therefore they can be used to fort outwardly and upwards. Yes. But the fort happens at the end of the turn, not the beginning.This brings in the concept that the navy must have a treasury in order to assist build it up.

pamoa wrote:then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply shipI also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

The third (non-commander) territory does seem a bit random. If this was to counter the losing condition thing, then the losing condition can simply be that you need to hold at least 1 non-treasury space

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

pamoa wrote:then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply ship

well, no, not the way i see it. i have simply used the current 8 colours in play to show where these start positions are.With the current xml, you can't stipulate exact starting positions, they have to be grouped, thus when the map is in play, all starting positions will "start" across the board.

I also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

perhaps that is to prevent players from wiping each other out too early in the game.

and sorry but I don't understand your Min. Hold legendif it means you have to be in that row to get the Earn bonus just get rid of it

yes, i think it needs deleting also.

last minor graphic pointcan you put the corresponding shield below each column instead of the P1-12 names

I see what you're saying on that, but remember what i said about starting positions up above, where i have the starts now may not be where they are in actual play. They will simply be lumped in a group and dealt out randomly by the engine as per below.

From the xml Tutorial"Start Positions...... When the game begins these start positions will be split up randomly amongst the players. If there is a remainder, the territories of those start positions are dealt out in the same way as other territories (unless of course they are coded as neutral)."End tutorialThat's the same as positions like Timms and Yves in Das Schloß. The other start positions i.e. N2 & O6 are coded in the xml as normal territories without neutral starts.

thanks MrBenn

MrBenn wrote:

pamoa wrote:then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply shipI also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

The third (non-commander) territory does seem a bit random. If this was to counter the losing condition thing, then the losing condition can simply be that you need to hold at least 1 non-treasury space

i had thought on this, and like i stated to pamoa above, it stops anyone from being eliminated too early in the game since there is the losing condition. Having two "losing condition" armies is better that one, isn't it.

cairnswk wrote:From the xml Tutorial"Start Positions...... When the game begins these start positions will be split up randomly amongst the players. If there is a remainder, the territories of those start positions are dealt out in the same way as other territories (unless of course they are coded as neutral)."End tutorialThat's the same as positions like Timms and Yves in Das Schloß. The other start positions i.e. N2 & O6 are coded in the xml as normal territories without neutral starts.

thanks MrBenn

MrBenn wrote:

pamoa wrote:then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply shipI also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

The third (non-commander) territory does seem a bit random. If this was to counter the losing condition thing, then the losing condition can simply be that you need to hold at least 1 non-treasury space

i had thought on this, and like i stated to pamoa above, it stops anyone from being eliminated too early in the game since there is the losing condition. Having two "losing condition" armies is better that one, isn't it.

It depends on how many armies you start on them, and how many territories/neutrals lie between. I think it makes more sense to only have the Commander and if you're desperate to make it 2, perhaps one adjacent instead of one a little way off.

As an aside, the squares will need to be big enough for 3-digit armies

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

MrBenn wrote:...^^^...It depends on how many armies you start on them, and how many territories/neutrals lie between. I think it makes more sense to only have the Commander and if you're desperate to make it 2, perhaps one adjacent instead of one a little way off.

Can you expand on this reasoning for me please. I'd like to understand why you are saying that, and then it might convince me more.

As an aside, the squares will need to be big enough for 3-digit armies

V5: Each square is 24 pixels wide, and then the grid adds 1 pixel to this. Same for height.The top row of digits is 24 pixels wide, the bottom row is 25 pixels wide.So i've increased the squares to 26 pixels wide for the small map.On the large map, this won't be an issue since there will be plenty of space, if it is increased to 1400 wide then each square is 35 pixels wide, but i guess we won't need all that space.On V6, which i will upload today, you will see in the middle of the map the three digits and how they will lay.Let me know what you think.

actually i think helix is just trying to make his life easier and spot what maps have been lacking constant updates. i saw he requested the date in the title to other maps in the drafting room.but i think a simple page number would be enough. just like i do: "SteamWorks - V12 p1&11" this way the CA knows where to look for the most recent update, plus he sees the date and all the update details.

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

DiM wrote:actually i think helix is just trying to make his life easier and spot what maps have been lacking constant updates. i saw he requested the date in the title to other maps in the drafting room.but i think a simple page number would be enough. just like i do: "SteamWorks - V12 p1&11" this way the CA knows where to look for the most recent update, plus he sees the date and all the update details.

Yes, i can understand IH wanting to make his life easier and to that extent i agree with him, but i also think it should be applied consistently across the board...that why i ask if this is something new. However, it has been done on front page.

* update to increase the size of this small map so that squares are now 26 pixels wide - map size 1026 x 891.This should ensure that 888s fit in the squares well as shown by the colour and 88 combinations.* major adjsutment to the title * script added for the losing condition* removal the earn column (causing confusion i bleive) from the Treasury on each side